Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27147391›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2016

Protocol for a process evaluation of a cluster randomised controlled trial to improve management of multimorbidity in general practice: the 3D study.

Cindy Mann, Alison Shaw, Bruce Guthrie, Lesley Wye, Mei-See Man, Sandra Hollinghurst, Sara Brookes, Peter Bower, Stewart Mercer, Chris Salisbury

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. A computer template to enhance patient-centredness in multimorbidity reviews: a qualitative evaluation in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2018
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Cindy MannCentre for Academic Primary Care, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1256-1820
Alison ShawCentre for Academic Primary Care, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Bruce GuthrieDivision of Population Health Sciences, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.
Lesley WyeCentre for Academic Primary Care, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Mei-See ManCentre for Academic Primary Care, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4948-5670
Sandra HollinghurstCentre for Academic Primary Care, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0782-3117
Sara BrookesSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Peter BowerCentre for Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Stewart MercerDepartment of General Practice and Primary Care, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Chris SalisburyCentre for Academic Primary Care, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4378-3960

Funding

Department of Health 12/130/15
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAs an increasing number of people are living with more than 1 long-term condition, identifying effective interventions for the management of multimorbidity in primary care has become a matter of urgency. Interventions are challenging to evaluate due to intervention complexity and the need for adaptability to different contexts. A process evaluation can provide extra information necessary for interpreting trial results and making decisions about whether the intervention is likely to be successful in a wider context. The 3D (dimensions of health, drugs and depression) study will recruit 32 UK general practices to a cluster randomised controlled trial to evaluate effectiveness of a patient-centred intervention. Practices will be randomised to intervention or usual care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The aim of the process evaluation is to understand how and why the intervention was effective or ineffective and the effect of context. As part of the intervention, quantitative data will be collected to provide implementation feedback to all intervention practices and will contribute to evaluation of implementation fidelity, alongside case study data. Data will be collected at the beginning and end of the trial to characterise each practice and how it provides care to patients with multimorbidity. Mixed methods will be used to collect qualitative data from 4 case study practices, purposively sampled from among intervention practices. Qualitative data will be analysed using techniques of constant comparison to develop codes integrated within a flexible framework of themes. Quantitative and qualitative data will be integrated to describe case study sites and develop possible explanations for implementation variation. Analysis will take place prior to knowing trial outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Study approved by South West (Frenchay) National Health Service (NHS) Research Ethics Committee (14/SW/0011). Findings will be disseminated via a final report, peer-reviewed publications and practical guidance to healthcare professionals, commissioners and policymakers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN06180958.

Indexed as

General PracticeMultimorbidityChronic DiseaseClinical ProtocolsCluster AnalysisDelivery of Health Care, IntegratedFemaleHumansMaleOutcome Assessment, Health CarePatient-Centered CarePractice ManagementQualitative ResearchQuality ImprovementQuality of LifeUnited KingdomFamily PracticeMultimorbidityPatient-centred careProcess evaluationProtocol

Identifiers

PMID27147391
PMCPMC4861104

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.